[Standards] 2017-11-29 XMPP Council Meeting Minutes

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Dec 7 08:14:48 UTC 2017

On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>> The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have
>>>> not given public feedback, due to being on Council, but that they could
>>>> have feedback that should be taken into account. For the sake of two
>>>> weeks, I’m not sure it’s worth shortcutting giving that opportunity here.
>>> I don't think the two weeks matters necessarily but everyone on the
>>> council now was previously a member and could have given feedback. If
>>> they didn't then, I don't see why being on the council would make a
>>> difference.
>> It’s the opposite case that xep1 is concerned with. A Council member might
>> decide not to give feedback on standards@, knowing that they can give such
>> feedback when voting, and such when they’re not on Council their
>> not-yet-voiced comments might fail to be heard.
> FWIW, in a first and second iteration of thought, I think we should try to 
> change the relevant passage of XEP-0001.
> It encourages council members (and to say this to begin with: I doubt that 
> anyone from current or previous council actually did that, at least not with 
> malicious intent) to delay their feedback until the voting process, at which 
> point the community has no way to reasonably address that feedback (be it 
> negative or positive) with remarks which may have been overlooked and taken 
> for granted (thus not mentioned) by others.
> This could invoke a feeling of "not being heard" in the community, which I 
> think could be very detrimental.
> So encouraging that behaviour by means of XEP-0001, I think we should not.
> Looking forward to the third iteration of thought :-) (i.e. what you think).

I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces public feedback.

Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review this XEP thoroughly as part of the LC, now I have reviewed it more thorougly and I have feedback, so there are two possible outcomes:

1) The LC is reissued and I send out my Council feedback publicly in response to the LC. There’s a clear path to addressing feedback.
2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the Council meeting.

There’s the additional risk that if the LC isn’t reissued that new Council members feel pressured to just +1 and not do their jobs reviewing XEPs that came up before the previous Council because of a sense of completing previous Council’s work. I’d have thought avoiding the potential for Council to feel pressured to not do their job is worth keeping this text in xep1 for.


More information about the Standards mailing list